Harry Targ
The New York Times on July 7 announced: “With Ukraine burning
through stockpiles of conventional weapons, Biden administration officials
decided they had little choice but to provide cluster munitions, despite their
lasting danger for civilians, particularly children.”
It is appropriate to condemn all weapons used by all parties in wars targeting adults and children. The Ukraine War started with a Russia invasion of Ukraine. The Ukrainian military responded. Ukraine was joined in one way or another by several nations, particularly countries in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. This war was started by Russia, and the invasion should be condemned. However, volumes have been written about historic contexts that are relevant to understanding why the invasion occurred. Perhaps knowledge of these histories might help lead to a settlement of the war.
Significant sectors of the US peace movement have
responded to the war by condemning the Russian invasion, calling for a
ceasefire on all sides, and urging the beginning of a process of negotiations
that could lead to a permanent end to the killing.
Because the US peace movement is located
geographically and politically in the United States it most appropriately has criticized
US policy: on supplying weapons to Ukraine, on increasing involvement of NATO
in the war, and on pressuring other countries to join the war in support of
Ukraine. As the violence has advanced, some analysts have begun to worry about
an escalation to nuclear war between the West and Russia and a spread of war to
the South China Sea, against China.
At the same time, progressive forces in the United
States are increasingly mobilizing against the far rightwing in domestic
politics. In the arena of electoral politics, the Republican Party primarily stands
for economic deregulation, increasing the concentration of wealth at one pole
and economic impoverishment at the other, recreating Jim Crow racism in
virtually every institution, and returning to the long history of patriarchy
and homophobia. Progressives realize that the rightwing, a majority of the Republican
party, have to be opposed.
But, in contradiction, while progressives strategize
about defending and rebuilding America, they
feel obliged, many claim, to support the Democratic Party. Unfortunately, this
same Democratic Party, seeks to recreate US global hegemony in a multipolar
world, willingly risks nuclear war, and imposes economic sanctions (starving)
on at least 30 countries.
Today a bipartisan coalition of Democrats and
Republicans have revitalized a permanent war economy that effects science,
education, culture, and how scarce resources are allocated.
And now, the Biden Administration has decided to
transfer cluster bombs to the Ukraine War. The use of cluster bombs is opposed
by at least 120 countries and major human rights organizations. Cluster bombs,
along with land mines, can survive long after the wars for which they were used.
Therefore, progressives are faced with a profound
contradiction: oppose rightwing reaction at home (represented mostly by the
Republican Party) by supporting very modest progressive policies (mostly in the
Democratic Party) advocated by politicians who support war and militarism
overseas. This dilemma is felt everywhere by peace and justice activists.
But what is often left out of the calculus is the
fundamental contradiction that exists between pursuing a better life in the
United States while United States foreign policy causes more pain, suffering,
and risks of wider wars overseas. In short, privileges at home exist at the
expense of others around the world.
The project for US progressives is to create a
movement, or movements, that is based on Che Guevara’s injunction: “always be
capable of feeling deeply any injustice, committed against anyone, anywhere in
the world.”
